Is there a not a more efficient way of blowing up lots of people than firing missiles from a submarine?
Hmmm, you could always hijack some airliners & crash them into some massive buildings full of people. Only I don't think even a nuclear deterrent would stop that. If only.
Like what are they going to do? After we've laid waste to 1/4 of the habitably planet
This, rather than the legality, is really the crux of it.
Assuming the disaster of a failure of nuclear deterrence and a strategic nuclear weapons launch by one belligerent against another, what is the purpose of the targeted state retaliating? Can it possibly be said to be moral to deliberately and indiscriminately destroy swathes of land and kill thousands upon thousands of people, for no better reason than revenge, or because we promised we would if they did?
As a moral proposition, the idea that making sure that the UK gets the last word in a nuclear exchange trumps the preservation of some sort of functioning human civilization in the future is pretty appalling. And threatening to do something that is not morally permissible is pretty poor form.
Fascinating (and scary) subject this.
Just to add my tuppence worth;
1)The UK deterent is independent. US support is needed to maintain it, but targeting and firing are controlled by the UK. So yes, if we had a PM with big enough balls, or a mental impairment, we could use it without Washingtons approval.
2)It is almost a certainty that the UK warheads have variable yields ranging from around 8-10kt (smaller than the hiroshima bomb) to around 100kt (large city and surrounding area gone).
3)If two subs are put to sea anywhere on Earth is in range.
Whilst nuclear weapons are IMO evil things, a purely conventional force would need to be massive to be able to threaten a potential enemy with near instant destruction of key assets. This is the draw for nuclear tipped missiles - cheap almost instant destruction.
When facing non-nuclear armed states I am sure the UK governemt (at least under Maggie) were happy to leave foriegn dictators wondering at what point the UK would consider using them. There is certainly enough evidence Maggie believed Saddam understood what the consequences of using chemical weapons against the allies in 1990/1 would be.
Should we replace Trident? My view is that with the current proliferation, Putin in the Kremlin (and the possibility of ever more hhardline nationalists) and the decay of our conventional armed forces I don't think we really have a choice.
And finally, France has them, need I say more 😉
Klunk - Member
given that the ruskies probably have a good idea where our subs are at all times then yes,
that's just not even remotely close to being true. Submarine hunting is very hard indeed, even if you have an acoustic signature.
BigDummy - MemberAs a moral proposition, the idea that making sure that the UK gets the last word in a nuclear exchange trumps the preservation of some sort of functioning human civilization in the future is pretty appalling. And threatening to do something that is not morally permissible is pretty poor form.
The point of Mutually Assured Destruction is that it stops either side from using nuclear weapons. It ceases to be a moral decision (noting that Hitler, Stalin and various other famous despots weren't particularly renowned for their strong sense of morality) and becomes a simple strategic one i.e. if we destroy them then they'll destroy us. This assures no one launches a nuclear attack. In order for this to work all sides need a credible nuclear capability and the belief that the opposition will use it in extremis.
The problem with unilateral disarmament is that it relies on the "morality" of the remaining nuclear powers - if they decide it's moral to wipe out opposing countries, for example to reduce global overcrowding or because they follow a different "morally corrupt" doctrine or religion, they can. Human history has many examples of genocide and nuclear weapons just provide a more efficient means of achieving the aim.
The best solution would be for no country to have nuclear weapons but given we've opened Pandora's box we need a balance of power that maintains the status quo and guarantees nuclear weapons are not used - Trident is the UK's contribution to that balance.
that's just not even remotely close to being true.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision ]the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).[/url]
Klunk - Member
the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).
wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare. That happened because it's a good place to hide, so lots of subs use the area, and because when a sub is being quiet the chances are you wouldn't ever know it's there.
[quote=jaaaaaaaaaam said]
wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare.
Don't you know who Klunk is man!
[img] 
[/img]
wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare.
exactly but the russian military is so i repeat my assertion
given that the ruskies probably have a good idea where our subs are at all times then yes,
Klunk - Member
that's just not even remotely close to being true.
the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).
Klunk - that story just highlights how difficult subs are to detect when they're trying to be stealthy. The collision occurred because neither sub could detect the other - i.e. the opposite to the point you're trying to make.
Klunk - that story just highlights how difficult subs are to detect when they're trying to be stealthy.
he's behind you
[img] 
[/img]
Give me a ping Vasily
One ping only
Who needs subs anyway? Russia demonstrated it's new stealth capacity about six months ago in Sweden.
[img] 
[/img]
exactly but the russian military is so i repeat my assertion
I'm ex-Navy intelligence so perhaps a bit more knowledgeable than most on here. While it's of course possible the Russians have tracked our missile subs on occasion it's thought to be fairly unlikely. In fact reading between the lines of that article I'd view it as the Russians saying they'd been trying but hadn't managed yet.
A lot of hilarity in here.
1. Disposal - aside from the reactors which are decommissioned as normal (and being modular far more easily than their predecessors) the warheads area actually pretty clean. Plutonium is highly radiotoxic but can be safely handled with the appropriate PPE. We have a warehouse full of if just sitting in Sellafield.
2. We don't need the permission of the USA to launch. All systems are under our control.
3. I doubt anyone here or on wiki knows anything about the patrol areas. My old man was a Coxswain on the bomber boats and if the driver doesn't know where he was going I doubt many others do.
4. I don't see much of a threat to Barrow in any case, it'll still be building as long as we need subs. Same for Faslane, it'll still be hosting subs.